There is nothing wrong if I abstract a speculation of a monkey existing in an earth-liked planet 100 light years away because all these are possible empirical-rational elements.

The only problem is if a non-sequitor premises e.g. metaphysical or transcendental premises, e.g. God or soul are forced into the syllogism.

Logic is premised in a form of metaphysics as the laws of logic which set the standard for abducitivity are unproven emprically.

You got it wrong and trying to pull a fast one.

Metaphysics and logic are separate subjects within Philosophy.
Logic is used in Physics, Science, etc.
But you cannot claim Logic is Physics, just as
you cannot claim logic is premised on Metaphysics.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality.

Logic ..... is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference.
-wiki

The universe in scientific terms is possible since it is empirically based.

Sure about that? What empirical evidence supports that?

Your questioning of this point is very telling on your ignorance.
To be more specific it is empirical-rational based.
People have been observing the sky, planets, Sun, Moon and through space exploration human has landed on the Moon and explored various planets, etc.
Scientists has formulated [rationally] various theories regarding the mechanisms of the above elements and proven them as predicted.
From the above Scientists has inferred a scientific-based-universe* from the above empirical evidences. * nb: not a theological Universe created by God.

Thus the only probable God is an ontological God which is metaphysical and transcendental. But such a God as I had proven is an impossibility.

It must really upset you that science proves you wrong. (Note: I did not say science proves theism right; I said science proves you wrong.)

The is pointless.

The fact that theists are caught in this catch-22 dilemma is because the idea of God arise originally from psychological reasons and thus should be resolved on the level of psychology and never by empirical-rational proofs.

My call re the psychology approach is not speculative nor unreasonable because non-theistic spiritual groups [Buddhism, Jainism, etc.] have been doing that for thousands of years with reasonable results.

Even non-theistic religions pray.

Yes, pray but in their core-principles do not pray to an ontological God.
Non-theistic prayers are limited to psychology.

There is nothing wrong if I abstract a speculation of a monkey existing in an earth-liked planet 100 light years away because all these are possible empirical-rational elements.

The only problem is if a non-sequitor premises e.g. metaphysical or transcendental premises, e.g. God or soul are forced into the syllogism.

Logic is premised in a form of metaphysics as the laws of logic which set the standard for abducitivity are unproven emprically.

You got it wrong and trying to pull a fast one.

Metaphysics and logic are separate subjects within Philosophy.
Logic is used in Physics, Science, etc.
But you cannot claim Logic is Physics, just as
you cannot claim logic is premised on Metaphysics.

Actually you claim they are seperate then claim they are connected through philosophy. If philosophy is the common bond, they act as premises for eachother through philosophy. They act as recursive frameworks through eachother.

There is no fast one.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality.

Logic ..... is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference.
-wiki

And biology depends on physics and chemistry as well...so if logic is dependent upon biology is depends on physics, and chemistry as well and ths following definition of logic relies on a statistical argument of which is closer which cycles back to logic as determining logic and this being que being goes back to metaphysics.

It ends up being a knot looped, that while logical, is complex. Does the complexity necessitate it being wrong? No. But it Is premised in progressive looping and we are left with spatial axioms.

Dually the question occurs does evolution result in biology or does biology result on evolution. The logic premised on evolution is basically argued for an expanding circle (a geneticist relative and friend of mind observed the movement in evolution is one towards circular expansion) or progressively linear structures.

Either way it is directed movement through spatial axioms. This directed movement is universal for all being.

Logic is premised in space, metaphysics is fundamentally a science of recursion, as being que being.

Logic is premised in a form of metaphysics as the laws of logic which set the standard for abducitivity are unproven emprically.

You got it wrong and trying to pull a fast one.

Metaphysics and logic are separate subjects within Philosophy.
Logic is used in Physics, Science, etc.
But you cannot claim Logic is Physics, just as
you cannot claim logic is premised on Metaphysics.

Actually you claim they are seperate then claim they are connected through philosophy. If philosophy is the common bond, they act as premises for eachother through philosophy. They act as recursive frameworks through eachother.

There is no fast one.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality.

Logic ..... is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference.
-wiki

And biology depends on physics and chemistry as well...so if logic is dependent upon biology is depends on physics, and chemistry as well and ths following definition of logic relies on a statistical argument of which is closer which cycles back to logic as determining logic and this being que being goes back to metaphysics.

It ends up being a knot looped, that while logical, is complex. Does the complexity necessitate it being wrong? No. But it Is premised in progressive looping and we are left with spatial axioms.

Logic is premised in space, metaphysics is fundamentally a science of recursion, as being que being.

I have posted much about interdependence.
Within relative determinism everything is connected somehow.

If I say, the baby is premised upon the parents, surely you are not going to counter by saying, what about water and food to ensure they survive to have the baby or even the existence of star-dust, the Universe, etc.

Scientists [have] inferred a scientific-based-universe from the above empirical evidence, not a theological Universe created by God.

Correct, but it leaves the door open to God's being.

Thus the only probable God is an ontological God which is metaphysical and transcendental. But such a God as I had proven is an impossibility.

It must really upset you that science proves you wrong. (Note: I did not say science proves theism right; I said science proves you wrong.)

Th[is]is pointless.

But true nevertheless.

My call re the psychology approach is not speculative nor unreasonable because non-theistic spiritual groups [Buddhism, Jainism, etc.] have been doing that for thousands of years with reasonable results.

So?

Yes, pray but in their core-principles do not pray to an ontological God.
Non-theistic prayers are limited to psychology.

"God" is one's ultimate concern. According to you, then, they pray to ontic core-principles.

Why are you so afraid to admit that, as one scientist put it, "When properly pursued, physics and philosophy are possible pathways to the Divine"?

There is a “cosmic order independent of our choice and distinct from the world of phenomena.” – Wolfgang Pauli.

“None of our scientific endeavors would be possible at all if the universe were not ordered, a vital point that tends to be overlooked by atheists afraid of facing its possible religious implications. Wolfgang Pauli, another key quantum pioneer, also believed that there is a “cosmic order independent of our choice and distinct from the world of phenomena”. What he means is that there is some kind of cosmic order that exists independently of the physical universe, and which nevertheless guides the unfolding of all physical reality. When we understand the implications of his words, we have to admit that he does not sound so different from a medieval theologian describing the infinite intelligence and power of God. Einstein, too, was devoted to striving to “comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature”. Pauli and Einstein are saying that the cosmic order or universal reason, what the ancient philosophers would have called the logos, permeates the universe. In other words, there must be an inherent rationality to the universe that never changes, but always is just what it is.”*

If Pauli is correct, then this cosmic order must at once be beyond the physical universe and yet guide the unfolding of all physical reality. Einstein and many other eminent pioneering physicists also held similar views, which clearly have mystical implications — something nonphysical at the foundation of all physical reality. Unfortunately, our contemporary education system has been incredibly efficient at suppressing this vitally transformative information.

The Eternal Law not only brings to light such facts, but also offers a way to understand them, and to heal the rift between our holistic, intuitive side and our discursive rational cognition.

For those materialists who think that such mystical claims are simply nonsense, please don’t point your finger only at me, but point it also straight at Pauli and Einstein (and Heisenberg and Newton and Kepler, and many more).

Scientists [have] inferred a scientific-based-universe from the above empirical evidence, not a theological Universe created by God.

Correct, but it leaves the door open to God's being.

It must really upset you that science proves you wrong. (Note: I did not say science proves theism right; I said science proves you wrong.)

Th[is]is pointless.

But true nevertheless.

My call re the psychology approach is not speculative nor unreasonable because non-theistic spiritual groups [Buddhism, Jainism, etc.] have been doing that for thousands of years with reasonable results.

So?

Yes, pray but in their core-principles do not pray to an ontological God.
Non-theistic prayers are limited to psychology.

"God" is one's ultimate concern. According to you, then, they pray to ontic core-principles.

Why are you so afraid to admit that, as one scientist put it, "When properly pursued, physics and philosophy are possible pathways to the Divine"?

There is a “cosmic order independent of our choice and distinct from the world of phenomena.” – Wolfgang Pauli.

“None of our scientific endeavors would be possible at all if the universe were not ordered, a vital point that tends to be overlooked by atheists afraid of facing its possible religious implications. Wolfgang Pauli, another key quantum pioneer, also believed that there is a “cosmic order independent of our choice and distinct from the world of phenomena”. What he means is that there is some kind of cosmic order that exists independently of the physical universe, and which nevertheless guides the unfolding of all physical reality. When we understand the implications of his words, we have to admit that he does not sound so different from a medieval theologian describing the infinite intelligence and power of God. Einstein, too, was devoted to striving to “comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature”. Pauli and Einstein are saying that the cosmic order or universal reason, what the ancient philosophers would have called the logos, permeates the universe. In other words, there must be an inherent rationality to the universe that never changes, but always is just what it is.”*

If Pauli is correct, then this cosmic order must at once be beyond the physical universe and yet guide the unfolding of all physical reality. Einstein and many other eminent pioneering physicists also held similar views, which clearly have mystical implications — something nonphysical at the foundation of all physical reality. Unfortunately, our contemporary education system has been incredibly efficient at suppressing this vitally transformative information.

The Eternal Law not only brings to light such facts, but also offers a way to understand them, and to heal the rift between our holistic, intuitive side and our discursive rational cognition.

For those materialists who think that such mystical claims are simply nonsense, please don’t point your finger only at me, but point it also straight at Pauli and Einstein (and Heisenberg and Newton and Kepler, and many more).

Metaphysics and logic are separate subjects within Philosophy.
Logic is used in Physics, Science, etc.
But you cannot claim Logic is Physics, just as
you cannot claim logic is premised on Metaphysics.

Actually you claim they are seperate then claim they are connected through philosophy. If philosophy is the common bond, they act as premises for eachother through philosophy. They act as recursive frameworks through eachother.

And biology depends on physics and chemistry as well...so if logic is dependent upon biology is depends on physics, and chemistry as well and ths following definition of logic relies on a statistical argument of which is closer which cycles back to logic as determining logic and this being que being goes back to metaphysics.

It ends up being a knot looped, that while logical, is complex. Does the complexity necessitate it being wrong? No. But it Is premised in progressive looping and we are left with spatial axioms.

Logic is premised in space, metaphysics is fundamentally a science of recursion, as being que being.

I have posted much about interdependence.
Within relative determinism everything is connected somehow.

If I say, the baby is premised upon the parents, surely you are not going to counter by saying, what about water and food to ensure they survive to have the baby or even the existence of star-dust, the Universe, etc.

You got out of context in your response.

What I had posted is about the significant variables.

Not really, the response is about the nature of context through context, that is the context. It may sound like a play one words, but it is a self sustained argument.

If everything is connected and codependent, then by default all things have truth in them and your crusade to eradicate religion is void of purpose.

Significant variables are statements of relation, considering all variable are significant if all variable are connected.

I have posted much about interdependence.
Within relative determinism everything is connected somehow.

If I say, the baby is premised upon the parents, surely you are not going to counter by saying, what about water and food to ensure they survive to have the baby or even the existence of star-dust, the Universe, etc.

You got out of context in your response.

What I had posted is about the significant variables.

Not really, the response is about the nature of context through context, that is the context. It may sound like a play one words, but it is a self sustained argument.

If everything is connected and codependent, then by default all things have truth in them and your crusade to eradicate religion is void of purpose.

Significant variables are statements of relation, considering all variable are significant if all variable are connected.

Science is good. Science is not the be all and end all of truth.

I believe that is your problem, i.e. trying to link everything when not necessary to the question.
All things are connected in a relative deterministic way and thus interdependent in various degrees.
You cannot assume they are all critically important but rather you need to consider the context and thus consider the degrees of [inter]dependence between variables.

My weaning of ALL religions with Islam as priority is the direct link between religions and religious-based evil and violent acts.
Note the many types of religious based evil acts and notably this;

Therefore when we have weaned off Islam and all religions* then there will be ZERO religious-based evil and violent acts. QED!
* subject to replacing them with non-religious spiritual fool proof practices.

There will be secular-related evil and violent acts which need to be addressed.
The ideal is to get rid of ALL evil and violent acts in the world.

I have posted much about interdependence.
Within relative determinism everything is connected somehow.

If I say, the baby is premised upon the parents, surely you are not going to counter by saying, what about water and food to ensure they survive to have the baby or even the existence of star-dust, the Universe, etc.

You got out of context in your response.

What I had posted is about the significant variables.

Not really, the response is about the nature of context through context, that is the context. It may sound like a play one words, but it is a self sustained argument.

If everything is connected and codependent, then by default all things have truth in them and your crusade to eradicate religion is void of purpose.

Significant variables are statements of relation, considering all variable are significant if all variable are connected.

Science is good. Science is not the be all and end all of truth.

I believe that is your problem, i.e. trying to link everything when not necessary to the question.
All things are connected in a relative deterministic way and thus interdependent in various degrees.
You cannot assume they are all critically important but rather you need to consider the context and thus consider the degrees of [inter]dependence between variables.

My weaning of ALL religions with Islam as priority is the direct link between religions and religious-based evil and violent acts.
Note the many types of religious based evil acts and notably this;

Therefore when we have weaned off Islam and all religions* then there will be ZERO religious-based evil and violent acts. QED!
* subject to replacing them with non-religious spiritual fool proof practices.

There will be secular-related evil and violent acts which need to be addressed.
The ideal is to get rid of ALL evil and violent acts in the world.

Trying to connect everything to Islam is faulty by your own logic, as you would be linking Islam to everything.